Monday, June 14, 2021

Reload Your Own Ammo, If You Want To Be A Good Shot!, by Steve Collins

0

by Steve Collins, Survival Blog:

Common Sense and Facts About Shooting

Common sense tells us that if you want to be a good shooter, you need to shoot often. Facts tell us, though, that our wallets won’t allow us to shoot as often as we want or need to. While resorting to the .22 caliber firearms is often cited as an acceptable alternative, at some point you need to shoot your primary gun. The answer to buying factory ammo is to reload your own. I started reloading in 1984 when I got my first Colt 1911 .45 auto. Shortly thereafter I received a Smith & Wesson Model 29 .44 Magnum revolver for Christmas, along with my first reloading kit. Mom must have known something, or it was Divine Providence, that led her to get both of those items at the same time, because I found out very quickly how expensive .44 ammo was!

Not Somewhere Between Rocket Science and Black Magic

Reloading is seen by many as being somewhere between rocket science and black magic. Nothing could be further from the truth! Reloading is a safe activity, as long as you pay attention to what you’re doing. Making our own ammo allows us to tailor a particular load to our particular situation. We also aren’t left at the mercy of the manufacturers during times of short supply, such as we saw in 1994 and again in 2008. While a lot of folks were scrambling to find practice ammo, I was at my loading bench making as much as I wanted.

If you’ve chosen a caliber that isn’t that common, such as .38 Super, 10mm, or .41 Magnum, reloading isn’t just a nice hobby but becomes almost a necessity. Making your own ammo can allow you to shoot that old rifle that belonged to your grandpa and for which you can’t find factory ammo anymore, too.

 

Preparing to Reload

Basic Overview of Beginning Reloading

This is going to be a basic overview of beginning reloading, since reams of paper have been written on the subject. I’m just hoping to get you started down the right path.

Let me put this note in right now: Reloading is a potentially dangerous activity. Neither I nor the publishers assume any responsibility in your loading practices. My loads are safe in my guns. Take appropriate precautions when handling reloading components.

Get Reloading Manuals and Read

First, get a reloading manual, preferably three or four of them, and read them from cover to cover. They all say many of the same things, sometimes just a little differently. Every company has their own way of measuring velocity, pressures, et cetera. My personal favorite is the Lyman 50th Edition Reloading Manual, which has data from many different sources. It’s usually the first one I grab when I’m looking up a new load or caliber. They will all cover the basics of what goes on when reloading your own: de-priming and resizing the case to factory configuration, seating a new primer, adding gunpowder, and seating and crimping a new bullet. The manuals usually have good pictures in them to help you along.

Talk to People Who Reload At Local Gun Shop

Next, go to your local gun shop (or two or three) and ask to talk to the individual who knows the most about reloading their own ammo. I’m pretty lucky in that I have a friend who has been reloading for nearly 60 years, making my 25 years seem paltry. They can probably answer a lot of your questions and give you some good recommendations. If you have a friend or family member who is willing to help you along, that’s even better. Getting some hands-on experience before venturing out on your own will help assuage some of the fear that most have about making their own ammo.

Obtaining a Reloading Press

Begin With Single Stage Reloading Press

At this point, we’re going to assume that you’ve decided to continue on with learning how to reload your own ammo. Now you have to get a reloading press, but which one? Should it be a progressive or single stage? I always recommend that a beginner use a single stage press. A single stage press means that each operation has to be done to every round you intend to load. Then you go on to the next operation and the next. Yes, it can be tedious and slow, but you will get a better feel for each operation, and you can inspect your brass at each step to see what is really going on. Plus, you will always have the opportunity to use the single stage press later on, even when you decide to move on to something more advanced.

My single stage press, an RCBS Rock Chucker, is 35 years old, and it is still going. I’ve seen some older presses in gun shops that were made in the ‘50s and ‘60s and worked just fine. I use it for developing new loads for my pistols and for my rifle ammo, since I don’t shoot near as much rifle as I do pistol.

Progressive Press by Dillon Reloads Over 100 Calibers

My progressive press is made by Dillon Precision and is their model 550B. This press will reload over 100 calibers (and yes, I have friends that reload that many or more!) A progressive press means that with each pull of the handle, a new fully loaded round is made. It’s accomplished with the use of a turret style head of some type, allowing each round to be moved to the next phase of the operation. We’re going to focus primarily on the single stage though, since it’s easier to show you each step.

Basic Accessories For Reloading

Reloading Dies

Reloading dies are next. These come made for each individual caliber, and you’ll need new ones for every caliber you decide to reload. Most of the reloading companies make dies, but some, like RCBS, make them for nearly every caliber ever made and then some. Dies come in two, three, and four die sets, depending on what caliber you’re loading for. Once again, this comes back to reading the manuals and asking questions. A shell holder is needed and may be purchased separately, or it is sometimes included with the dies. This is what holds the case in the reloading press. One shell holder can hold several different sized cases, such as the 30-06 shell holder that will also hold .243, .270, and .308 because they have the same case head size.

Powder Dispenser

A powder dispenser is necessary, since it holds the powder you’re going to put in the case. You adjust it for a certain amount of powder, whatever amount the reloading manual says. This gets measured on your powder scale. The powder scale lets you precisely measure the amount of powder that you are putting in the case. Follow what the manual says; do not guess at how much powder to put in!

Those are the basic accessories you need to reload. But, you also need to get the components, i.e., what bullet do you want to use, what primer, what powder? You thought we were done? Not quite…

Components for Reloading

Unless you’re doing something task specific (hunting, precision shooting, et cetera), your basic full metal jacket bullet or lead bullet will be fine for practice. I do use specific bullets for certain things and have my own preferences. Only through a lot of study and experimentation will you find your own.

Primers

Primers come next. They’re made in small and large pistol, and small and large rifle. They’re also made in magnum versions, which we won’t worry about right now. You can get them in packs of 100 or an entire sleeve of 5000. The manual will tell you which size you need for your particular cartridge.

Gunpowder

You also need gunpowder, and there are many different kinds. Some are specific for rifle, pistol, or shotgun, and some are multi-purpose. Powders are not all the same! Do not substitute one for another! The results can be disastrous. Use the powders specified for your cartridge in the manual. (See the recurring theme here?) Also, you may find references to very popular loads from famous gun writers in print and on the internet. Do not jump in and start using these without a thorough knowledge of what you’re doing! Some of these “legendary” loads were developed several decades ago. Over time, powders and primers have changed and those old loads may not be safe in your gun. With any new load you work on, the story stays the same: start low and slowly work your way up.

Read More @ SurvivalBlog.com

Only Stupid People Demand Banning Guns

0

from BATR:

How many times has this country been subjected to the same old canards that if we only ban firearms, some kind of mythical conveyance will shine over the aggressive nature of the American public and the altar boys will emerge to bless the rest of the law-abiding citizens? Get REAL. There is no magic bullet that will curve around the aiming path of a shooter unless Senator Arlen Specter can be resurrected to explain how the laws of physics can be bent to fit the narrative. For the armchair prognosticators let them enjoy the sport of dissecting the Las Vegas “situation“. Sorry, at the end of the distraction; nothing but a footnote in the long saga of diverting the public away from the true fundamentals of oppression, the Stephen Paddock’s in this violent society will just melt into obscurity.   

With all the fanfare that always accompanies the hysterics from the limousine liberals, who routinely are protected by their gun packing security teams, the celebrity moralists continue to preach why ordinary citizens must relinquish their self-protection firearms as a necessary price to keep La La Land safe.

The rebuttal comes from World Net Daily which provides a good overview in the Top 5 anti-gun proposals and why they’ll never stop a madman. According to “Dr. John Lott says the proposals either already failed to stop killers or would do little more than serve as a political win that doesn’t make anyone safer.”

Such arguments never will shut up Mr. loud mouth himself. The Fox Insider reports that Michael Moore Calls for Repeal of ‘Ancient & Outdated’ 2nd Amendment. “He acknowledged that we can never eliminate murder, but we can join the community of “enlightened nations” where gun violence is not a “daily tragedy.”

For Moore’s Facebook statement read, My Proposal to Repeal the Second Amendment and Replace It with This:

PROPOSED 28th AMENDMENT TO THE US CONSTITUTION 

“A well regulated State National Guard, being helpful to the safety and security of a State in times of need, along with the strictly regulated right of the people to keep and bear a limited number of non-automatic Arms for sport and hunting, with respect to the primary right of all people to be free from gun violence, this shall not be infringed.”

I, Michael Moore, along with all who support an end to this epidemic of gun violence, propose a new Amendment to our Constitution that repeals the ancient and outdated 2nd Amendment (which was written before bullets and revolvers were even invented), and replaces it with a new 28th Amendment that guarantees States can have State militias (a.k.a. State National Guards which are made up of citizen-soldiers who are called upon in times of natural disasters or other State emergencies), allows individuals to use guns for sport and gathering food, and guarantees everyone the right to be free of, and protected from, gun violence (i.e., the public’s safety comes ahead of an individual’s right to own and fire a gun).

This amendment would allow states and the federal government to pass laws that would regulate gun ownership in the following manner:

Read his entire list in his repeal of the 2nd Amendment from a man who has A Love Affair with Wall Street Capitalism.

 

WOW, America should become one of those “Enlightened Nations” that have been stripped of their natural right to effective self-defense by banning guns from the common man. If you want to make society safer, put in place the Swiss model of an armed citizenry and refute the European Union version of defenseless prey to criminals and terrorists.

 

Coming from a genuine enlightened celebrity James Woods shreds Geraldo Rivera for attacking Second Amendment on Twitter.

 

“Since the tragic Las Vegas shooting, anti-gun liberals have used whatever means available, including social media, to spread anti-Second Amendment propaganda and distortions, no doubt hoping to see the amendment repealed.

As one can imagine, these attempts have only revealed the ignorance of the anti-gun left.  Unfortunately, instead of educating themselves on the issue, liberals have simply doubled down on the “stupid,” showing their true colors.

A post at the Gateway Pundit correctly observes that “‘psychos’ and terrorists can easily purchase or rent a vehicle and plow over people as we have seen numerous times…”

So we have to ask: Why aren’t these same liberals demanding vehicle control?  What about background checks for those who wish to rent a van or a truck?”

Appreciate the stupidity of Geraldo Rivera, a lifelong progressive who masquerades as a converted moderate and a reliable journalist, for the apologetic guilt ridden privileged class of establishment gatekeepers.

Just so folks do not misconstrue that only progressives are dim-witted, there are many mainstream right learning pundits that fit the bill as dumber than dirt. The Hill reports that one such self-proclaimed “conservative New York Times columnist Bret Stephens called for a repeal of the Second Amendment in a Thursday op-ed.” Mr. Stephens writes:

“The Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790s, the New York draft riots of 1863, the coal miners’ rebellion of 1921, the Brink’s robbery of 1981 — does any serious conservative think of these as great moments in Second Amendment activism?”

Well, Mr. NYT federalist, authentic paleo-conservatives would vigorously side with those confronting the tyranny of the central government during the Whiskey Rebellion and side with the resistance against the Union draft for funneling cannon fodder to wage the War of Northern Aggression.

Such faux conservatives are sorely lacking in a proper education of what it means to have a society based upon individual liberty.

The proper viewpoint why the second amendment is crucial to the survival of America as a free nation of sovereign citizens is provided by Richard Ebeling in The Daily Bell.

“The taking up of arms is a last resort, not a first, against the intrusions and oppressions of government. Once started, revolutions and rebellions can have consequences no one can foretell, and final outcomes are sometimes worse than the grievance against which resistance was first offered. However, there are times, “in the course of human events,” when men must risk the final measure to preserve or restore the liberty that government threatens or has taken away. The likelihood that government will feel secure in undertaking infringements on the freedoms of Americans would be diminished if it knew that any systematic invasion of people’s life, liberty and property might meet armed resistance by both the victim and those in the surrounding areas who came to his aid because of the concern that their own liberty might be the next to be violated.

As a people, we have swum against the tide of collectivism, socialism and welfare statism to a greater degree, for the most part, than have our western European cousins. As a result, in many areas of life we have remained freer, especially in our market activities, than they. The fact that other peoples in other lands chose to follow foolish paths leading to disastrous outcomes does not mean that we should follow in their footsteps.”

Yes, those that advocate people must submit to the demands of the collectivists are the real fools. Being an idiot is a constitutionally protected practice. It is hard to argue against that most sophisticated “PC” neophytes have a diminished political weight for their opinions. After all, a marginal voter seldom becomes an activist in working the political system. Blowhards may vent steam from their overheated heads, but few enlist in the grunt work to lobby the careerist government parasites that they need to apply constitutional protections and restraints to their official duties.

Legislatures rarely have the courage to defend the Bill of Rights. The hard effort falls to groups like the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America when it comes to the Second Amendment. Most citizens would like to avoid any confrontations or avert engaging in the serious topics of a responsible citizen.

Read More @ BATR.org

GUN-TOTING ROBBER WALTZES INTO CONVENIENCE STORE, CLERK IMMEDIATELY OPENS FIRE [VIDEO]

0

from The Daily Sheeple:

A Smoke 4 Less store clerk in Durham, North Carolina got into a shootout with an armed robber, and police just released the video Thursday.

It’s pretty incredible.

WATCH: 

First of all, you gotta give props to this clerk. From my detailed, CSI-level video analysis he was already brandishing his weapon before the masked gunman even entered the store.

Now that’s some emergency preparedness.

He likely saw the robber coming in via the parking lot security camera, which police have also released.

WATCH:

I like this camera angle because it shows just how quickly this thug tucked his tail and ran. He may have planned to rob a Smoke 4 Less, but he was definitely not looking to get Smoked 4 his actions.

Read More @ TheDailySheeple.com

If the shooter in Orlando doesn’t represent all Muslims why does the shooter in Las Vegas represent all gun owners?

0

by Dr Robert Owens, Freedom Outpost:

If the shooter in Orlando doesn’t represent all Muslims why does the shooter in Las Vegas represent all gun owners?

When the bullets started flying in Las Vegas none of the police officers took a knee.

SNL’s Michael Che called President Trump a “Cheap Cracker.”   If a conservative comedian referred to President Obama with a racial slur on national TV would they still have a job?

The CBS exec who said she had no sympathy for Las Vegas victims is now upset because no one has any sympathy for her for being fired.

The AntiFa continue to use fascist street tactics to fight fascism.

Che Guevara just another mass murdering communist idolized by Left.

Berny Sanders says, “Nobody working forty hours per week should live in poverty.”   One way to accomplish that would be to stop stealing their money and giving it to people who work zero hours per week.

If Democrats would stop shooting people gun deaths would drop by 90{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528}.

Democrat response to Las Vegas, “We have no idea how to stop the carnage in Chicago, or Baltimore, or DC where all our gun control fantasies are already law.   No, give up your guns.”

America is third in the world for murders.   But if you drop Chicago, Detroit, DC, and New Orleans; all democrat controlled for generations and all with strict gun control America drops to the fourth from the bottom of that list.

The Progressives tell us that Socialism is the answer.   Hitler – 21 million dead. Mao – 49 million dead.   Stalin – 62 million dead.

Fracking has cut more CO2 than all of the renewable energy boondoggles combined.

Congress exempts itself from laws it passes such as Obamacare and insider trading.

Why don’t we see NFL players taking a knee to protest all the women who have been abused by NFL players?

Democrats want to do extensive background checks on Americans who want to buy a gun and they also want to let tens of thousands of Syrian refugees into the country with no vetting process possible.

Read More @ FreedomOutpost.com

The Las Vegas Massacre and Alternative Media Triumph

0

by Matt, SGTreport:

I love the alternative media. For many reasons really, not least of which is not having to lie to everyone everyday. The main reason though is through the alt-media you can find out what’s actually going on. To be sure, there is a lot of speculation and educated, as well as uneducated guesswork but watching the alternative media completely dismantle the official narrative in real time has always been a pleasure to watch.

This is all certainly true with the latest horrific attack in Las Vegas. The official narrative being pushed, that Stephen Paddock, alone and with little experience initiated a massacre and the whole problem is down to to that ‘pesky’ 2nd amendment. Repeal that, and the problem will be solved.

Like many things you might be able to judge motive with a certain amount of back reasoning depending upon what the politicians push for following the incident. It will be interesting to see how the US Liberty act gets strong armed. A Deep State push for this agenda would lend further credence to the multiple shooters explanation currently being developed.

Remember the Patriot Act. A 352 page document signed into law on October 26th 2001, a whopping 6 weeks after the 9/11 terror attacks. This thing was written beforehand for sure and I think everyone can speculate as to why.

I usually like to wait a few days on these type of things though in order to get a more rounded perspective on what’s likely to have gone on.

What’s emerging has been quite fascinating. Certainly adding to the intrigue is a mysterious character names John on 4chan warning people away from Las Vegas and talking about the ‘High Incident Project’ all the way through to Robert Steele, who purportedly actually ran false flags for the CIA giving his opinion that this indeed was a false flag.

Then there’s a question of the expended brass or the alleged ballistics calculation note. The fact that he was on Diazepam, a known drug for the treatment of anxiety (who prescribed him that). Common side effects are nausea or sickness, however, in extreme cases it can cause hallucinations, agitation and anxiety (the very thing it’s supposed to cure) as well as paranoia. The sort of side effects that lead to a mass shooting maybe?

Although taking note of these things I do prefer hard reasoning based on evidence or experienced personnel commentating on observable evidence. Alex Jones is hinting at an ISIS connection and Trump is covering it up on the basis it may contain sleeper cell activation codes. Without any evidence I’ll wait out on that.

One of the first respected opinions I heard though was Paul Joseph Watson’s recent appearance on the Stephen Crowder podcast.

In my opinion he made two wholly general points with his attempt to smear those who chose a different opinion. Despite agreeing with Paul on many issues I thought he was more than denigrating to a group of people putting information and theories out into the Open Source of the internet for scrutiny.

Although there are many click bait sites, and trying to put informative information on any subject while avoiding these articles is a task in itself on a daily basis I thought Paul on this occasion made a couple of woefully inadequate points.

I take complete note of his point about locations of recordings and echoes and the strobe light on the 4th floor. All perfectly possible. Not definitive but perfectly possible.

Firstly though his comments about mike accuracy. While it’s true cellphones don’t have directional mikes and the greatest technologically possible hardware they are excellent enough at recording sequence. What happened in what order. Analysis of sound recording can filter out noise and a mike on a phone can pick out an individual round being fired and an individual bullet strike. It’s also timeline sequential, that is to say it’s a recording of real time in order. It becomes perfect possible to distinguish between an original shot, an echo, distant gunfire and bullet strikes. Each has very different sound waveforms.

Secondly he seems to conflate the whole issue of echoes and muffled gunfire. Apparently being satisfied that muffled fire was the result of Paddock turning around to shoot within the room. This statement can only have come from someone who has never heard an automatic weapon in real life. Assuming he didn’t move greatly, or wrap the end of the weapon in a pillow the sound that emanates from a weapon mostly behaves like light from a torch. Simply turning the weapon around to fire in a different directing produces the same sound to the observer all other things being equal.

The alternative media investigation is starting to move onto firmer ground though. If you haven’t seen it yet, I’d recommend watching the Alex Jones interview with Craig Sawyer, a former Navy Seal and, as he lets slip, a guy who has his services used by the government for litigation purposes on weapon sounds. The interview also includes the taxi driver footage and sounds.

You can watch it here,

You can quite clearly hear distant shots BEFORE Paddock begins firing. They didn’t appear to be echoes, thus discounting a negligent discharge from a Police Officer who empties his MP5 clip into the roof of his cruiser or a civilian performing defensive automatic fire then it is prima facie evidence of a second shooter. I have so far (and that doesn’t mean there aren’t any) heard absolutely no reports of any return of defensive fire taking place. Paddock seems to have committed suicide (another one) before SWAT entered.

By far the best to date has come from Mike Adams at Natural News

Mike runs through the information needed to qualify the existence of a second shooter. Having come from a science background I’d have personally liked to have seen the audio waveforms as well as the sounds played but I have absolute no reason to suspect Mike’s integrity here.

I watched the Mike Adams’ analysis twice, the first time in general and the second time with a sceptical scientific eye. The reasoning I find is sound but rests on 3 key assumptions that I didn’t hear addressed.

Firstly, the 2nd shooter is using the same rifle and rounds as the 1st shooter. For the 2nd shooter to be at a range of 250-275 yards identified by the analysis, you are presuming the weapons are the same. If the 2nd shooter’s rifle is more powerful then the bullet strike sound will be further ahead of the rifle percussion. Thus the calculations need to be altered.

Secondly, the audio pickup is close to enough to the bullet strikes so as to be negligible. If the sound of the round striking the ground has to travel from its impact point to the recording device, this has to be factored in. Mike didn’t show the clip from which he took the audio, but I’m speculating that this may not have been a problem. If the recording device is perpendicular to the bullet trajectory then conceivably the bullet strike and rifle report sounds could reach you at the same time. I don’t conceive this as a problem as Mike identifies the 1st shooter from Mandalay Bay, which is known.

Thirdly, the bullet strikes from the 2nd shooter need to be in the same position, or at least calculable distance in a known direction. If the 1st shooter is firing at your feet and the 2nd shooter is firing 200 metres away, then this needs to be taken into account.

What’s fascinating about all this is what Mike hints at, and I’m hoping the alternative media can help here.

For those not familiar with the principle of triangulation let me briefly explain. It’s a military or civilian idea used to locate an unknown position from known factors. Sailors use it to locate their position on charts near a coastline.

If a ship can see two identifiable landmarks on the coastline then it can take a bearing to each. The navigator can then calculate the ‘back bearing’ (The reverse bearing i.e. the direction of the land mark to the ship) and draw a line on a chart. At this point you know you are somewhere on this line. If you do it a second time to a landmark on a more perpendicular trajectory then these two lines will cross. Where they intersect will be your position.

With sounds the principle is similar. If you know the sound and you know the physical properties of sounds coupled with known bullet speeds then you can calculate distance. Thus a given time between the bullet strike and the rifle report gives you a known distance away for any given rifle and round combination. Drawing a circle around that position gives you infinite but quantifiable shooter positions.

What this investigation needs now is TWO known recordings of the same incident from known location points. You can then perform the same analysis and get a range of the 2nd shooter from two locations.

Possibly you can help here. Despite YouTube and Google cracking down and removing these uploads if you know of two then you should make it known.

A couple of stipulations

They need to be far enough apart location wise so that when you draw the circles it’s easy to see where they intersect. Two recording devices next to each other will produce almost the same circle. The second circle will be within the margin of error and therefore useless. It’s also helpful if they are both equidistant from the bullet strikes.

Secondly, the locations of the devices needs to be known or be able to be calculated. This is critical as it’s the basis for the triangulation. The camera on the phone if it’s recording can help a lot here. This needs to be known so that the centre of the triangulation is as accurate as possible. The more error here the more the inaccurate the 2nd shooters position.

Mike talks about this in his presentation and I’d term the phrase ‘Acoustic Triangulation ‘ for the idea.

The idea being;

With two known locations from which you can calculate accurate distances for the gunfire you can draw 2 circles with precisely two bisecting points.

Your 2nd Shooter MUST BE at one of those 2 points. Only at those 2 points can each recording device have recorded the results they did.

Common sense then comes into play. If point A is the middle of a road and point B is a lovely sniper position then you have almost certainly recorded the position of your shooter.

As a word of caution, elevation plays a role in distance. A man on the 1st floor firing at you is a shorter distance than the man on the 32nd floor doing the same. What you learnt of Pythagoras’ theorem applies here.

As a side-note, one thing I’ve not heard a lot about is how Paddock died. Apparently the SWAT team found him dead after he learned of their presence through position cameras. No doubt all that’s above board.

So, the hunt is on. Out of the hundreds of hours of footage, with YouTube and Google doing their best to get in the way, and hamper a decent alternative media investigation;

Do you know of two recordings from two identifiable positions that capture the overlapping gunfire of the second shooter that have line of sight?

Stay tuned, this could get interesting.

For REAL NEWS 24/7 Visit us @ SGTreport.com

Dianne Feinstein: “No Law Could Have Stopped Las Vegas Gunman”

0

from ZeroHedge:

Four days after the NRA revealed its tentative support for a ban on “bump stocks” – a product that nobody had heard of until last week when Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock used them to convert semi-automatic rifles to fully auto – California Senator and vocal gun-control advocate Dianne Feinstein made a stunning admission on CBS’s “Face the Nation” when she said that “no law would’ve prevented Paddock” from carrying out his deadly plan.

Paddock, Feinstein says, was a “well-to-do” man who “wasn’t mentally ill” (this despite reports speculating that he may have been schizophrenic). Given his financial resources, grim determination and – most importantly – ability to easily pass background checks, his right to own a firearm was never in question.

JOHN DICKERSON: What do you make of increased sales of bump fire stocks in wake of this shooting and then now legislation?

DIANNE FEINSTEIN: See, I don’t know what to make of it. What this event said – this is a well-to-do man, he wasn’t mentally ill. Um, he wasn’t a criminal, he wasn’t a juvenile, he wasn’t gang banger, and he was able to buy 40 weapons over a period of time, have 12 bump stocks, line them up, break through two windows in his hotel suite, and take aim at tens of thousands – well I guess over a thousand people at a concert. And this was such a cross section of America that it really struck at every one of us, that this could happen to you. And we want to stop it.

JOHN DICKERSON: Could there have been any law passed that would’ve stopped him?

DIANNE FEINSTEIN: No, he passed background checks registering for handguns and other weapons on multiple occasions.

JOHN DICKERSON: From the other side, those who would like to restrict guns in America, who hear a bill targeted as you’ve described it narrowly at this idea – at bump fire stocks – and say, “The only way to stop this kind of situation in America is to ban these kinds of semi-automatic weapons, and weapons that can fire with rapidity, and anything short of that is insufficient.” What do you say to those people?

DIANNE FEINSTEIN: I agree with them to a great extent. What I don’t – because, as you know, I did the assault weapons legislation in 1993, which was law of the land for 10 years. So I believe, I mean I’ve watched this thing from the Texas bell tower to today, in schools, in businesses, in workplaces. No one appears to be safe anywhere.

This admission from Feinstein is surprising, considering her longtime support for gun control (she helped champion the 1993 assault weapons ban) and the fact that she was one of the first to speak out about the need for more effective gun control laws following the Las Vegas shooting, offending many victims and their families in the process with her transparent attempt to politicize the tragedy.

Feinstein, it’s worth noting, is one of the sponsors of the bill to ban bump stocks that has garnered support from many Republican legislators and the White House. Bump stocks are already banned in California. The NRA has said it would support “additional regulations” on the devices.

“Face the Nation” Host John Dickerson quickly turned the conversation to the Russia investigation, prompting yet another revealing, but ultimately unsurprising, admission from the longtime California senator. Namely, that the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation into collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign has yet to find evidence. Though she later insinuated that Chairman Richard Burr – who delivered a memorable status update last week – and his fellow Republicans have been trying to undermine the investigation, without elaborating as to how. She added that proof will “likely” be uncovered by the Mueller investigation which has grand jury power… although if that were the case, one would expect it to have been leaked by now.

Read More @ ZeroHedge.com

The Las Vegas Massacre: The Media Narrative is Deceptive

by Edward Curtin, Global Research:

“Cram them full of non-combustible data, chock them so damned full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely brilliant with information. Then they’ll feel they’re thinking, they’ll get a sense of motion without moving.” – Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451, 1951

“It is not only information that they need-in the age of Fact, information often dominates their attention and overwhelms their capacities to assimilate it….What they need , and what they feel they need , is a quality of mind that will help them to use information and to develop reason in order to achieve lucid summations of what is going on in the world and of what may be happening within themselves.” – C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination, 1959

The main stream media’s (MSM) ongoing narrative of the massacre in Las Vegas is clearly deceptive. This is nothing new. That is their modus operandi. Overwhelm people with a glut of information about a terrible tragedy and all becomes clear to people sick-at-heart over the deaths and injuries to innocent people. But it’s a false clarity engendered to confuse. Tell the story big and loud, and tell it repetitively from different angles, and it becomes hard to think straight, especially with the addition of all the sad stories of the innocent victims’ deaths and injuries. Who can forget the false official narrative that was spun amid the grief for all the innocent victims of the attacks of September 11, 2001. Few could think straight at the time.

The MSM tells us in detail about Stephen Paddock’s gambling life, his houses and real estate dealings, how much he paid for them, his gun collection numbering 47, including all those in his hotel room (23), the alleged exact number of rounds he had in his car (1,600), how he shot from his hotel room windows, etc. We are told what his brother and girlfriend say about him: they are shocked; he was just a regular guy; they can’t explain it. We are told how he got the room gratis, how long he stayed there, and that he was planning to escape (they say this with a straight face). Told how many people died (59) and how many were injured (527), we remember these numbers vaguely, especially the latter. A regular person just feels overwhelmed by all the information, the numbers; saddened and depressed for all the victims, and more afraid.

What the media do not say is that there is video and witness evidence that there were at least two more shooters, maybe more, one from a lower floor and another at the Bellagio Hotel that was locked down. This means that there was a conspiracy involved. They don’t mention this so that someone like me can do so and be branded a “conspiracy theorist,” the term created by the CIA to besmirch anyone questioning the official narrative of the JFK assassination.  You will notice that I am not – purposefully – linking to this evidence that I assert exists, nor am I raising more of the many questions surrounding this case. I am hoping that readers will research these matters themselves, and if they discover that there is evidence proving that there was more than one shooter, then, just as with the magic bullet absurdity in the JFK case, they will conclude, ipso facto, that the MSM are involved in a cover-up of a conspiracy, which is itself a conspiracy – afactual conspiracy, not a conspiracy theory. And if that is so, they will ask why, and who is being protected. Cui bono? Why would the MSM push this narrative of the lonely crazed gunman?

People need to realize that they must be immediately skeptical of such official narratives and do their own research, and they will learn that there are excellent alternative websites that are doing real journalism and are seeking truth for truth’s sake.

While this brief article is not a “lucid summation,” as Mills suggested we need, I offer it as a concise provocation to anyone reading this to develop their own sociological imaginations to achieve such lucidity at a time when propaganda is king and the pawns are being swept off the devil’s chessboard.

One might end up asking: Who’s the devil? And answering their own question?

Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely. He teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. A former college basketball player, he teaches the sociology of sports, and writes on a wide range of topics. His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/

Featured image is from NPR.

Read More @ GlobalResearch.ca

Catalonia Shows the Danger of Disarming Civilians

0

from The Anti Media:

October 1 showed the US why we need civilian guns.

(FEE— Since the tragic murder of 59 peaceful concertgoers in Las Vegas Sunday, I’ve heard well-intentioned Americans from all political corners echoing heartbroken and tempting refrains:

Can’t we just ban guns?

Surely we can all get together on the rocket launchers.

Things like this would happen less often.

We have enough military.

While victims were still in surgery, some took to television and social media to criticize the “outdated” and “dangerous” Second Amendment to the Constitution. They have lived so long in a safe, stable society that they falsely believe armed citizens are a threat to life and liberty for everyone.

Those who claim to see no necessity or benefits of individual gun ownership need only look to the rolling hills of Catalonia, where a live social experiment is currently unfolding.

Unarmed Patriots

Just hours before an alleged lone gunman opened fire from the Mandalay Bay casino, the citizens of a small region surrounding Barcelona, Spain, cast a vote for their regional independence. Catalonia’s citizens have a unique language, culture, and history, and consider Spain a neighboring power, not their rightful rulers. So as America’s Continental Congress heroically did (and as Texans and Californians occasionally threaten to do) Catalonia wished to declare independence and secede.

Polling stations in Catalonia were attacked by heavily armed agents of the state with riot gear and pointed rifles. Spanish National Police fired rubber bullets and unleashed tear gas canisters on voters, broke down polling center doors, disrupted the vote, and destroyed enough ballots to throw results into serious doubt.

Exceedingly few of those would-be patriots were armed.

In Spain, firearm ownership is not a protected individual right. Civilian firearms licenses are restricted to “cases of extreme necessity” if the government finds “genuine reason.” Background checks, medical exams, and license restrictions further restrict access. Licenses are granted individually by caliber and model, with automatic weapons strictly forbidden to civilians. Police can demand a citizen produce a firearm at any time for inspection or confiscation. Spain has enacted, it would seem, the kind of “common sense restrictions” American gun-control advocates crave.

But of course, that doesn’t mean that Spanish citizens don’t buy guns. In fact, Spanish taxpayers maintain an enormous arsenal of weapons, which are all in the hands “professional armed police forces within the administration of the state, who are the persons

Those agents of the state weren’t “providing security to the population” of Catalonia on Sunday — they were pointing guns at would-be founding patriots who had challenged the rule of their oppressors.

“If somebody tries to declare the independence of part of the territory — something that cannot be done — we will have to do everything possible to apply the law,” Spain’s justice minister said in a public address.  While many polling places were closed or barricaded, 2.3 million voters (90{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} in favor of independence) were permitted to vote, he claimed, “because the security forces decided that it wasn’t worth using force because of the consequences that it could have.”

The consequences of a government using force to control those it is sworn to protect must be high. When citizens are armed, the consequences for tyranny rise and its likelihood falls.

Armed Tyrants

Americans have grown too trustful of the State, too ready to assume bureaucrats have only our best interests at heart. Even with a maniacal man-child in the Oval Office, many are seemingly eager to turn over individual liberty to those who promise to manage our lives for us. The United States was designed to be the smallest government in the history of the world, with no standing army, and little right to intrude in the private activities of its citizens. Instead, we have the most powerful and intrusive government in human history, with 800 permanent military bases in 70 countries, unfathomable firepower, and staggering surveillance capabilities. Unchecked abuses of power are routine and tolerated.

Read More @ TheAntiMedia.com

Communist Gun Grabber Senator Dianne Feinstein Provides Irrelevant Arguments Against the 2nd Amendment

0

by Tim Brown, Freedom Outpost:

Once again, Communist and Socialist minded representatives in Congress are making unconstitutional and irrelevant arguments against the Second Amendment and to push for more gun confiscation.

That’s right, they really want gun confiscation, not gun control because in their minds, there will never be enough gun control because no amount of laws written will ever stop the evil heart of men who are hell-bent on committing crimes with guns or any other arms they can get their hands on.

Take a listen to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) as she pushes for a ban on “bump stocks.”

“You have to say that there is no reason to make a semi-automatic “assault weapon” into a fully automatic battlefield weapon,” Feinstein told reporters.

Let’s stop right there before continuing.

First, I don’t have to say anything, nor do I agree with her assessment about any of this.

Consider the bump stock.  The bump stock is an ingenious little quick swap out of a regular stock and pistol grip.

It acts as one unit and when properly used, it will mimic the response of a fully automatic weapon, but the gun remains a semi-automatic rifle.

In fact, you can lock the bump stock in place.

Additionally, the semi-automatic with a bump stock is a bit easier to control than a fully automatic weapon, as well.

Putting one of these on your semi-automatic rifle does not make it an “assault weapon” nor a “fully automatic battlefield weapon,” as Feinstein declares.

It simply makes it a more efficient semi-automatic rifle.

There are reasons for this though.

Our Second Amendment was designed for those who represent us to keep their traps shut and their pens away from legislation that attacks such a product. 

In fact, it was designed to keep DC and any government from writing legislation that infringes on the right of the people to “keep and bear arms” of any sort.

Why?  Because those who represent us and their “law enforcers” are not restricted by such man-made laws.

So, it doesn’t matter if the guy had a fully automatic weapon, a grenade launcher or a .22 pistol and was doing the shooting.

Read More @ FreedomOutpost.com